Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2008RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 1 I_ 1 Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher called the Monday, February 4, 2008 Regular Meeting of Dublin City Council to order at 7:00 p.m. at the Dublin Municipal Building. Present were Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Vice Mayor Boring, Ms. Salay, Mr. Lecklider, Mr. Keenan and Mr. Reiner. Mr. Gerber was absent (excused). Staff members present were Ms. Brautigam, Mr. Smith, Mr. McDaniel, Chief Epperson, Mr. Hammersmith, Ms. Crandall, Mr. Langworthy, Ms. Ott, Mr. Hahn, Ms. Puskarcik, Mr. Phillabaum, Ms. Ruwette and Ms. Husak. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mr. Lecklider led the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Regular Meeting of January 22, 2008 Mr. Lecklider moved approval of the meeting minutes of January 22, 2008. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Mr. Keenan noted a correction to page 17, where it should state: "Mr. Keenan stated that once a bond is posted, the surety must make certain the project is completed according to the bid documents." Vote on the minutes as corrected: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Reiner, abstain; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence requiring Council action. CITIZEN COMMENTS Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road, stated that a famed journalist reports on the current climate situation and has concluded it is too late to do anything. The atmosphere now has 385 parts of carbon dioxide per million, and was expected to have 445 by mid century but that point is within reach now. It is anticipated that heightened level could have significant impacts on the environment. Coastal regions will gradually become flooded. Therefore, the Dutch dike system will be evaluated, as well as heat and cold resistant food. Some smaller impacts could also occur. Airport runways may no longer be long enough, because warmer, thinner air will make it more difficult for planes to lift off. Cities may need to construct public "cooling shelters" to compensate for extremely hot days. The word "adaptation" comes up when dealing with this subject. Instead of reversing the warming, it will be necessary to adapt to it. What does this have to do with Dublin? It relates to working on the building code to accommodate building which may want to make use of thermal or solar heat. There is a persuasive case that it is too late to do anything, and searching for excuses will turn into adaptation. LEGISLATION POSTPONED -OTHER • Preliminary and Final Plat -Duke Parkwood (5900 Parkwood Place -Case No. 07- 092PP/FP) • Final Plat -Paul Blazer Parkway - (5151 Paul G. Blazer Memorial Parkway- Case No. 07-117FP) Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that the applicant has requested that the hearing on the above plats be postponed until the next Council meeting on February 19. Mr. Reiner moved to postpone the hearings on the above plats until the February 19 Council meeting. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. INTRODUCTION/FIRST READING -ORDINANCES Ordinance 07-08 Rezoning 0.7 Acres of Land Located at the Northwest Corner of Bridge and High Streets, From: CB, Central Business District and CCC, Central Community Commercial District, To: PD, Planned Development District. (Bridge and High Streets Development - 20 West Bridge Street -Case No. 07-0992) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 2 Held Mr. Phillabaum shared a Powerpoint presentation regarding the project. He stated that this is a request for review and approval of a rezoning fora 22,000 square foot mixed used development. This project is aprivate-public partnership between the City of Dublin and The Stonehenge Company. A development agreement approved by City Council on June 18, 2007 outlines the details of this partnership and the development of the project. The rezoning and preliminary development plan was approved with seven conditions by the Planning Commission on December 6, 2007. On January 9, 2008, the Architectural Review Board approved the architecture and site modifications with conditions. The final development plan was approved with four conditions by the Planning Commission on January 17. The approval of the final development plan is not effective until the rezoning is approved by Council. Site: The site is located in the Historic District in the southeast portion of the City. It is a 0.7 acre site comprised of three parcels and is relatively flat with a slight drop in topography from northwest to southeast. It is currently developed as a municipal parking lot. Directly to the northwest of the project is 24 Darby Street, which has been accommodated in the site plan. Further to the northwest is the recently opened Darby Street municipal parking lot and surrounding businesses, including Town Center I on the south side of Bridge Street. The proposed site plan contains two 2-story, mixed-use buildings totaling 22,000 square feet of retail, restaurant and office use parallel to Bridge and High Streets. It contains a formal green located in the interior of the site, framed by the existing building at 24 Darby and the two proposed buildings. A public plaza at the northwest corner of the site provides visual and physical access to the formal greenspace. Patio space is proposed along both buildings to serve both private tenants of the buildings and the general public. Parking for this development is provided in offsite municipal parking lots and with on street public parking. To the west, along Darby Street is a valet stand. The refuse for this project is to be contained within the buildings themselves, in the northwest portion of Building A (along Bridge Street) and the northwest portion of Building B (along High Street). For Building B, this would be accessed via the Wing Hill service court that is created by the closure of Wing Hill at High Street; for Building A, access is along Darby Street. Architecture: The architecture has been approved by ARB. The south elevation of Building B was modified, as indicated in the presentation shown tonight, to be more in keeping with the vernacular of the District. Materials proposed for the buildings are predominantly brick, stone, siding, wood or hardiplank. The previous Gothic, pointed window frames have been simplified to a design more consistent with the District. The entries on the High Street elevation are accessed via steps. An ADA-accessible pedestrian plaza will be available from the interior and the corner. The mass and scale of the buildings is consistent with the rest of the architecture in the District, as are the setbacks. The landscape plan is a more open setting. The landscaped areas rely less on lawn and lush plantings and more on hardscape materials in order to support the high-level pedestrian activity. In addition to the formal green that is lined by trees on the north and west, there are a number of plantings contained in raised planter walls, as well as along the foundations of the buildings. The applicant has addressed-five of the seven conditions specified by the Planning Commission. Planning has evaluated the proposal based upon the criteria for review and approval of a rezoning/preliminary development plan. Planning recommends approval of the rezoning at the second reading on February 19 with the four conditions as listed in the staff report. Mo Dioun. The Stonehenge Company, 447 N. Hiph Street. Gahanna stated that after tremendous effort and careful review, his company, City staff, the Planning Commission, and the Architectural Review Board have produced the plan that is before Council tonight. They are ready to move forward with the plan pending Council's approval. They anticipate construction beginning in early spring. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher inquired if a mock-up of the stairs had been prepared. The development across the street is street level and does not require steps. She is curious RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 3 about the appearance of the stairs for the project. Mr. Dioun responded that they have not yet prepared a model of the buildings and their relationship to the site. They are confident that the steps will be tasteful and contribute to the "old" look of the buildings. There is a variance in elevation, increasing from the west to the east side of the site. The desire was to keep the plaza at the same elevation level and have access for all the buildings. This project is comprised of four-sided architecture. The desire is to encourage the in/out traffic from the inner plaza and for that gradually to become the gathering space. There is only one step from the plaza into the buildings. The function of the inner, formal plaza is to draw people into it as a gathering space. Most of the businesses will have frontage on both the front and back sides. Mr. Reiner inquired if the steps would be of limestone in keeping with the essence of Dublin. Mr. Dioun responded that if the budget allows, the steps will be of limestone. Mr. Reiner stated that the cost is not that excessive. Limestone stairs are now being pre- cut. Mr. Dioun stated that he cannot make a commitment at this time. They did use quite a bit of limestone in the Gahanna project. Their philosophy is to use natural materials as much as possible. If they do use limestone steps, they will need to be custom made to fit the project. Mr. Keenan stated that page L-6 of the plans indicates the use of limestone. Mr. Reiner responded that is true, but the text does not specify limestone. Mr. Dioun stated that the architect recommended the use of limestone, but the text does not commit them to that. They have discussed other materials, such as concrete, although the preference would be limestone. They will use the right materials to be consistent with the character. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that in regard to the trash matter, her understanding was that Stonehenge would meet with the other restaurants in that area and discuss the possibility of having a single trash storage area. Mr. Dioun responded that staff did arrange that meeting, and they discussed having a centralized trash collection and disposal system That is not under his control, but if that does not occur, he will commit to working with the other businesses and the City in a collaborative manner to achieve that. They have committed to intense trash management in the event it is necessary to have trash pick-up at each building. At one time, there was discussion about managing all of the trash at one of the buildings on Bridge Street rather than on High Street. However, after discussion with the Planning Commission, they agreed that it would not be ideal for a restaurant on High Street to have trash being carried through a public plaza that will serve as a gathering space. In conclusion, if a collaborative effort with the City and other businesses does not produce a central trash management plan, they will put in place such a program for this development that will prevent any trash problems. Ms. Salay inquired the location of the valet building. Mr. Dioun indicated the location on the map. He noted that some consideration was given to housing some of the mechanical control systems for the public areas, such as the irrigation system, as part of the valet site. This site will not be limited to valet service only. Although it is a private valet station, the City will have access to the equipment. Ms. Salay asked who would maintain the plantings, such as the planter boxes and container plantings. Mr. Dioun stated that the development agreement provides for the City's Parks division to maintain all the public areas. They are responsible for the footprint vertically from the elevation level and the City is responsible for the public areas, based upon the development agreement. Mr. Reiner requested clarification of the public and the private areas. Who is responsible for the maintenance of the outside dining areas? Mr. Dioun responded that if this area is used exclusively by a private business, they will be responsible for clean-up each day. If open to the public and not restricted to a private user, it should be the City's responsibility. At this point, it is not known who the users are RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 4 C 1 1 and how the outdoor areas will be used. The best test is whether the area is open to the public or whether it is exclusively used by a private business. That is the criteria by which it will be determined. Mr. Reiner noted that the outdoor dining is a welcome addition to the community, and is a private dining space. There is also more public park space where people can gather. Will there be a differentiation of these spaces that is apparent to the public? Mr. Dioun responded that, currently, 3,000 square feet of patio space is provided for in the plan. They will collaborate with City staff about patio locations and design. The responsibility for private areas will be the developer's or the tenant, which would be defined in the tenant lease agreement. Mr. Reiner asked about the irrigation system -who will pay for it and who will pay the water bill to maintain the green space. Mr. Dioun responded that the private development will not contain any green space. Ms. Ott added that through the development agreement, the City and Stonehenge have an obligation to execute a maintenance agreement prior to issuance of the final .occupancy permits for the buildings. This will be defined in that agreement in detail. It was not possible to define this until the final development plan was submitted. In regard to irrigation, those are City designed, and the City will be responsible for maintenance and associated utility bills. The City will work with Stonehenge to have separate metering facilities for City use for the irrigation for the water walls and the water needed to wash the plaza space, etc. Mr. Lecklider noted that he understands from the comments that the maintenance agreement is yet to be developed. He had not contemplated the possibility of City staff cleaning up the site on a daily basis. Ms. Ott responded this is similar to the arrangement at Town Center I, where the City is responsible for snow removal and for the general condition of the public areas. Mr. Lecklider stated that some of the plans provided show a dumpster location at Building A on the western side. Unless everyone can agree that the trash will be taken offsite, the trash will all go to the north end of Building B -correct? Ms. Ott responded that the trash will go to the north end of Building B and the west end of Building A. They each have a separate trash room in the design. Mr. Keenan asked if the dumpsters are actually within the building and accessed by an overhead door. Mr. Dioun responded that the dumpsters are actually in the buildings, and the doors are similar to a small garage door. Mr. Keenan asked for confirmation that the footprint and the vertical space upward is the responsibility of the developer. Ms. Ott responded that there is also a portion of the valet area, the details of which will be discussed further in the development of the maintenance agreement. It depends on how much of the public utility must be inside the valet space and how much control the City needs over that space. Mr. Keenan stated that what he does not understand, however, is in regard to the patio area and those areas used privately. Where does the revenue go for that space rental? He assumes that if a portion of the patio is set aside, a business owner would be charged for the additional square footage made available to them. Who receives the income from that space rental? Ms. Ott responded that the City is not charging a fee specifically for the exclusive and non- exclusive patio space. However, Stonehenge is committed to helping finance public art on this site and is making an annual contribution to that in recognition of the benefit the public space brings to its buildings. Mr. Keenan asked how it will be determined who receives patio space and who does not. Is the City not charging for this space? Ms. Ott responded that as part of the final development plan, those areas have been identified and reviewed by ARB and P&Z. The development agreement provided for up to 3,000 square feet of patio space that could operate as a permitted use. Mr. Keenan asked if these areas would be separated or fenced off from the rest of the patio area. Ms. Ott responded that this is possible, depending upon the needs of the tenant. Mr. Keenan asked if there is an additional charge for this square footage. To him, there should be a separation of public space versus private space. He supports the patio RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 5 concept, but what will the City do if other businesses demand use of the patio space similar to that provided for one business? Ms. Ott responded that there is likely a different set of conditions under which that other request would come forward. The current scenario involves the landowner, and Stonehenge has offered to finance future improvements to this space. The annual contribution beginning in 2009 by Stonehenge will be $6,000 towards improvements to the space that don't solely benefit the development. Mr. Keenan believes there is a potential for problems with this arrangement. Mrs. Boring stated that there are public spaces existing in Dublin now that are allowed to be used by restaurants. Mr. Keenan responded that in this case, however, there is much more plaza space being provided. Mrs. Boring stated that, similar todrive-through businesses on a site, there is a limit to what can be made available on one site. In many cases, it is a matter of first come, first served. Mr. Keenan noted that there is no revenue consideration as part of this. Mr. Dioun commented that this entire project needs to be considered as a public/private transaction and needs to be viewed in the context of the price per square foot for the footprint, as well as the investment made in parking facilities and construction of those. They have done a similar project in Gahanna where public areas/patios are currently being used by the restaurants at $2 per square foot on an annualized basis. If all 3,000 square feet were used, it would generate $6,000. All of this must be considered comprehensively in the public/private partnership, which resulted from negotiations and certain trade-offs. At this time, they are not certain of the level of desire for private patio space. Not knowing the interest, it was difficult to put a number on this during negotiations. Wallace Maurer, 7451 Dublin Road stated that he is still probing for the embracing impact of this project. He mentioned before that if this is to be a kind of "signature" presentation of the City, he is not sure about its impact. On page 2 of the memo, under the final development plan, no. 2, he questions the rationale for the maximum of three colors permitted on signs. It relates to the philosophy about the matter of color and why not more than three. Secondly, in the memo, under recommendations of ARB, no. 1, the Board recommends that the builder coordinate with staff to determine if the addition of a gable to the east and west elevations of this facade is architecturally appropriate. There is a question here of what the impression is supposed to be about Dublin. Third, there is a letter from Jeff Darby, who signs himself as the historic preservation consultant. Mr. Darby indicates that he still has questions relating to simplicity and complexity in the buildings. He is concerned with the elaborations and extensions on aspects of the buildings, which did not exist in the original historic district. Is there anywhere in Dublin a conversation or debate underway regarding what is architecturally appropriate and historic in Dublin? Where does a site begin to be historic? He believes it is already historic at the present time. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested Mr. Maurer discuss these items with staff prior to the next hearing Perhaps Mr. Maurer can consult with Mr. Darby, who is affiliated with Landmarks and is familiar with historic preservation. ~~ Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the second reading/public hearing will be held on February 19 and public testimony is welcome at that time. Ordinance 08-08 Amending Section 153.149 (Exterior Lighting Requirements) of the Dublin Zoning Code. (Case No. 07-109ADM) Ms. Salay introduced the ordinance. She applauds Mr. Langworthy for finally bringing this amendment forward. Mr. McCash, during his entire service on Council, had asked that the City codify the lighting requirements. Mr. Langworthy stated this is an amendment to the zoning code to address exterior lighting requirements. It will be a new section of the Code. Currently, much of this is regulated by the exterior lighting guidelines, which is not codified and therefore merely a guideline. A number of Planning Commissioners have discussed this with staff in terms of having the RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 6 Held 20 1 1 guidelines codified, and also in making them more detailed. Staff believes the proposal is a good start in adopting a Code. When a comprehensive code update is done, more work will be done in this area. He noted: 1. The purpose of the amendments is to increase the lighting where necessary, but to decrease the lighting to protect the night sky and to be consistent with safety requirements. 2. The applicability of the Code amendment will be to all developments with 10 or more required parking spaces, although all developments less than that do have requirements for lighting, particularly in the Building Code, for building entrances and for walkways. 3. Some exemptions include single-family homes, holiday decorations, street lights, and outdoor recreational lighting which is governed in another category. 4. The ordinance changes requirements for shielding, fixture type, light trespass limits, requirements for pedestrian lighting, and has provisions for administration, including plan reviews. He highlighted various areas of the amendments: 1. Shielding of site lighting is required. 2. Fixtures height is limited to 20 feet, measured from the ground to the top of the fixture. 3. For office buildings with excess of 500 spaces, light fixtures are permitted up to a maximum height of 35 feet when the poles are at least 150 feet from a residentially used or zoned site. 4. Provisions are included for horizontal fixtures -those attached to buildings. Building- mounted lighting must be directed downward and fully shielded. 5. There are foot candle limitations related to light trespass. Those are measured at 10 feet from the property line, and light trespass cannot go beyond 10 feet from the property line. 6. For trespass for parking lights, there is a reduction of lighting at 10 p.m. or within one hour of closing. An exception is provided for security reasons, based upon discussion with the Police Department. They have asked for some provision which will allow the Police Department to request exemptions for areas with security issues which they identify. The parking lot reduction to 50 percent would not be applicable in those areas. This provision would be included within the administrative portion of the ordinance. 7. In regard to canopy lighting, they are required to be mounted flush with the underside of the canopy. 8. Illumination of signs is required to be turned off at close of business or at 10 p.m. This provision may warrant some discussion. 9. For the administrative portion of the ordinance, as part of the plan review, a lighting plan and a submission of the fixture types will be required to determine they are full cutoff fixtures as required. Planning recommends approval at the second reading/public hearing on February 19. Ms. Salay asked about signage lighting, and if this will apply to existing businesses. Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively, and as with any Code change, staff will provide some grace period to allow businesses to comply. Ms. Salay asked about Section D(2) under Administration, where it states that the Director has the discretion to require the re-direction of existing light fixtures when it is determined that the fixture is creating off-site glare. Does that apply to any fixture in existence today? Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Lecklider asked if this is to apply to businesses along Avery-Muirfield such as Burger King, Walgreen's, banks, etc. in terms of sign illumination? Mr. Langworthy responded affirmatively. Mr. Lecklider clarified that the intent of this would be for the businesses to turn off the internally illuminated signs by 10 p.m. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a consideration related to the availability after those hours of ATM's, and perhaps further discussion is needed about this item. Perhaps these types of businesses should not be defined as "closed" at any hour. Mr. Lecklider responded that would make sense, as distinguished from a business such as a Walgreen's. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 7 i~ i_; 1 Mr. Keenan asked for clarification. Under what is proposed, the sign on his office building along Avery-Muirfield would be required to be turned off at 10 p.m. Mr. Langworthy stated that if a business is not open, the signage lighting would be required to be turned off. Mr. Keenan noted that this type of signage lighting is not obtrusive, and he does not understand the reason for this. Vice Mayor Boring stated that landscaping or security lights would not have to be turned off. Mr. Langworthy confirmed that is correct -only the signage and parking lot lights would be impacted with this change. Mr. Keenan responded he does not support this. A tenant of a building may have a patient with an emergency situation, and he would want the lights to remain on so clients could find the building. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if that would warrant an appeal to the provisions, in view of the potential for emergency visits after the close of business. Mr. Langworthy stated that this would be subject to the possibility of a variance. If desirable, a provision could be added to include some flexibility by the Director in the application. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher asked if there would be a fee involved with filing for such a variance. Mr. Langworthy responded that there is a fee involved. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that Council revisit this portion, and identify the businesses where people will need lighting to find the location. She is also concerned with the security issues related to robberies, when businesses are heavily landscaped and not well lit. These issues are of concern, as Council would not want to increase the rate of business crimes. Mr. Langworthy responded that there has been discussion with the Police department about this issue. This can be modified, if Council desires. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she agrees with the Mayor. In regard to parking lot light reduction, the trees in many existing parking areas have grown and the lots are darker. There are security issues involved. She is not certain she supports a 50 percent reduction in parking lot lighting. Ms. Salay pointed out that the reduction would be after a business is closed. Mr. Langworthy added that the language would require the 50 percent reduction within one hour after the business closes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that for businesses such as Kroger's that are open 24/7, their lots would not be affected. Mr. Langworthy agreed Vice Mayor Boring asked about auto lots, and how they are classified. Mr. Langworthy responded they are not considered a parking lot and would be allowed to keep their lighting levels. Mr. Keenan noted that from an insurance perspective, there is more lighting needed to ensure security for those lots. For his building, the lighting in the parking lot would be required to be reduced 50 percent after the building is closed, correct? How can the lights be reduced to meet this new requirement? This is another unfunded mandate, as timers would have to be added to the existing lighting. This constitutes excess government involvement. Will churches be required to dim their parking lot lights? Many have late evening operations or meetings. There are more questions than answers with respect to this. Dublin has a strong sign code, and now Dublin is asking that the signs that exist be turned off. Vice Mayor Boring stated that she is trying to visualize what the City will look like after 10 p.m. She is not sure these restrictions will achieve the desired outcome. Ms. Salay stated that if a business turns off their signage lighting, it is clear that the business is closed and customers won't stop. She agrees there are some issues with the provisions, and Council needs to reach out to the business community to work with them. It is important to identify the potential businesses that will have issues with the legislation in terms of customer service versus a desire to have advertising after hours. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 8 Mr. Lecklider commented that reducing parking lot lighting by 50 percent could also save monies long-term for electricity costs and will reduce light pollution. Mr. Keenan responded there is a safety and security issue for people who visit businesses after regular hours, including maintenance staff. Mr. Langworthy noted that the preference of the Police department is not to reduce the parking lot lighting to a 50 percent level. Mr. Lecklider responded that is a fair comment. He thought that what he heard over the years was that Dublin was interested in the application of the International Dark Sky Association regulations. Council can certainly change its mind, after reviewing some of the details. With respect to business signage, is turning them off after a business closes consistent with the guidelines of the IDSA? Mr. Langworthy responded that he is sympathetic to this discussion, as the guidelines of IDSA are very strict -- well beyond what is being proposed tonight. Mr. Keenan pointed out that he does not believe Dublin has a signage situation like the Columbus side of Sawmill Road. At what hour will Dublin businesses be allowed to turn their signage lights back on? Mr. Langworthy responded they can have signage lighting on when the business is operating. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that a building could have multiple tenants with different hours of operation. This may be problematic in the application. Perhaps the sign lighting issue is being confused with general building lighting. There is a marketing aspect, however, for building signage. Along the freeway, there are numerous businesses with lit signage. Will these businesses have to turn off their sign lighting? Mr. Langworthy responded that if they operate 24/7, the signs can be lit, but otherwise, they will have to comply with the provisions as drafted. Mr. Keenan stated that this will impact many corporate residents. Mr. Reiner stated that he believes the provision related to lighting of business signage is not well thought out. Businesses use signage for marketing. This change would not be considered "pro business" in terms of economic development. The parking lot portion should be reviewed carefully. There must be a means to encourage businesses to reduce parking lot lighting in keeping with the desire for night sky visibility. As the seasons change, there will be difficulty in coordinating the lighting to ensure safety for employees going to and from their vehicles. There is a lot of work involved in this. He does overall encourage the concept of eliminating excessive light pollution. Perhaps an initiative should be undertaken to encourage reduction of parking lot lighting. In addition, Dublin may have too many parking spaces required per square footage of building and changing this alone will help. Mr. Keenan agreed, noting it would complement the green initiative for the City. This is quite distinct from requiring businesses to turn lighting off to this extent. Vice Mayor Boring stated there may be other ways to address the issue of lighting in the way the zoning is set up. Mr. Langworthy commented that reducing the overall height of the fixture itself will help. Long term, that will have a big impact. Mr. Keenan stated that he understood this is what was being contemplated - to make changes going forward, not requiring retrofitting by the businesses. Mr. Reiner stated that in terms of green initiatives, saving energy and preserving the night sky, this effort must be taken in small steps, involving people in the solutions. The focus should be on reducing lighting by smaller percentages -- a manageable, practical and cost efficient approach. The City should not alienate the business community with these proposals. Ms. Salay suggested that the issues be separated. The lights that provide safety immediately adjacent to doorways and walkways will not be affected by this. The building RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 9 L itself will have lights. What is being proposed is reducing parking lot lighting by 50 percent. It is a "green" initiative which helps the planet and, ultimately, the business. Perhaps aphase- in period could be considered. The signage seems to be the problematic portion. Perhaps that portion of the proposal should be separated, and maybe the Community Services Advisory Commission could review it, involving the business representatives. Separating this item would preserve the important portion of the legislation - the height of poles going forward, size of parking lots going forward, and considering a 50 percent reduction in parking lot lighting, with exemptions available through the Police Department, based upon safety issues. Mrs. Boring stated that she remains concerned with the parking lot lighting reduction, and how this will be accomplished in terms of phasing and cost impacts to businesses. Mr. Langworthy suggested that he could provide some options for Council to consider, such as a business which changes out fixtures or lighting would be required to comply with the new legislation. Perhaps the 50 percent reduction would apply to parking lots of a certain size -- over 250 spaces. This would make more of an impact. He will provide some options to Council for the next reading. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that in addition to what has been outlined, her concern is that the City historically has incorporated use of a task force or advisory committee to obtain other input. She encourages staff to consider these options, which would also encourage buy-in to the changes. Mr. Lecklider asked for additional information on the IDSA guidelines to better understand their objectives. Perhaps it is important to understand the ramifications of what they recommend. If Mr. Langworthy had not pointed it out, he would not have been aware that this proposal is a less strict version than the IDSA recommendations. Ms. Brautigam stated that Mr. Langworthy will prepare a report with the additional information for the second reading on February 19. At that meeting, Council could decide whether they wish to form a business task force, and if so, provide specific directions for doing so. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that, in general, it has been Council's philosophy to engage a task force in a matter that will impact a large number of people. A task force provides advocates who will help educate their peers versus government imposing new regulations. Ms. Brautigam noted that because this is a zoning change that Council has requested, staff's perception was that it was a matter that could be submitted to Council for review and approval. Council has raised many good questions tonight, and staff will respond with as much information as possible for the next meeting. Ms. Salay stated that in the past, either Council, the Planning Commission, or Planning staff had recommended that certain parking lots reduce their lighting by 50 percent. She has seen this as a condition in development text. She asked that for the next meeting, staff prepare a list of the businesses who do so. Council members could visit the various parking lots and evaluate their appearance and level of lighting. This might increase the comfort level for some Council members. Mr. Langworthy responded that he does not believe there would be many on the list. These guidelines have been attached to recent projects, such as a couple of senior housing projects located adjacent to a residential use. What prompted this is the Planning Commission's dissatisfaction with the current guidelines. Typically, there is a proposed condition of approval that the applicant comply with the exterior lighting guidelines, but that condition was repeatedly removed by the Planning Commission because they did not support the guidelines. The Commission preferred to substitute their own guidelines. Mr. Keenan stated that a parking lot is different, especially if it is a condition for approval. It is much different than signage at the streetside or on the building. Mrs. Boring noted that she had preferred to handle this issue in the zoning text. She is concerned about requiring existing businesses to implement this. She would like information about the cost and degree of difficulty for implementation by existing businesses. Mr. Langworthy stated that the only implementation involved would be when the business changed fixtures. He will provide suggested language for the next meeting. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 10 Held Ms. Salay inquired if this requirement was made of any City facility. Mr. Keenan inquired if the lighting for the Rec Center is reduced 50 percent after hours. Mr. Hahn responded that with the Rec Center parking lot expansion, one of Council's advisory bodies did attach a condition to reduce exterior lighting by 50 percent after closing. The Rec Center is the only City facility with such a restriction. Mr. Lecklider noted that another example of a business developed under these guidelines is the King Thompson Realty office north of The Shoppes at Athenry. This condition was most likely imposed due to its proximity to the neighboring residential use. Council had requested that their lighting by reduced by 50 percent in the evenings. He suggested that there may be buy-in from the existing businesses to implement this after aphase-in period. Mr. Keenan asked: (1) What is known about the International Dark Sky Association, and (2) has any other entity within the country adopted these standards? Mr. Langworthy responded that they have. Although other communities are working on a model ordinance, they currently are using a list of recommendations. There will be a second reading/public hearing of Ordinance 08-08 at the February 19 Council meeting. INTRODUCTION/PUBLIC HEARING -RESOLUTIONS Resolution 06-08 Requesting Congressional Support in Obtaining $750,000 to Assist in Advancing the Widening of the Dublin Corridor, U.S. 33 from Post Road to I-270 in Dublin, Ohio. Mr. Lecklider introduced the resolution. Ms. Brautigam stated that U.S. 33 between Post Road and I-270 is a roadway that has a high level of traffic during peak hours. The study completed two years ago by MORPC and ODOT confirmed that there is a need to widen the road. At this time, there is no state or federal funding available for this purpose. However, in 2009, the federal government will be re-authorizing transportation funding. The City of Dublin would like to be in the forefront of an effort to obtain some of the available funding for this important project. This roadway serves as one of the major freight corridors within the state. This resolution would authorize City staff to request Senator Voinovich and Dublin's other congressional delegation to support providing Dublin with seed money in the amount of $750,000 for the initial design work for the widening of the roadway. Mr. Keenan inquired if the request would be made in conjunction with the upcoming National League of Cities meeting. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff is hopeful the Dublin delegation can meet with Senator Voinovich. The City's lobbyists have already spoken with the Senator's aides and with Congressman Tiberi's aides. This is the initial material that would be sent to their offices. Staff has also requested letters of support from community businesses, the Chamber of Commerce and the Dublin City School Board. Many have already sent these letters. Mr. Keenan stated that it was his understanding that at the NLC conference, a day is set aside for local officials to meet with their State representatives. Ms. Brautigam responded that Wednesday is designated as lobby day. However, Dublin is attempting to set up a meeting with Senator Voinovich on either Monday or Tuesday of that week. Vote on the Resolution: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes. OTHER • Final Plat -Heather Bluff Estates (Case No. 07-130FDP/FP) Mr. Langworthy stated that this is an application for approval of a final plat for Heather Bluff Estates, which is located in the southwest area of the City off of Woerner-Temple and Wilcox Roads. Most of the previous discussion centered on the preservation of the corner lot -Reserve A. There are four additional lots on the other sides of the street that have been included as Reserve B. A number of tree preservation zones have been placed on this property. All final plat criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of the final plat with the condition that tree mitigation occur before approval of the plat. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 11 Mr. Reiner inquired if staff is satisfied with the setback from Wilcox Road in Reserve A. Mr. Langworthy responded that staff has looked at that extensively and is satisfied. Vice Mayor Boring asked if there were trees which could be impacted. Mr. Langworthy responded that most of the identified trees were included in tree preservation areas. Vice Mayor Boring moved to approve the final plat with the additional condition that sturdy fencing be placed on the lot lines of Reserve A and the green space south of the reserve to remain in place throughout the entire construction period. Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. Vote on the plat: Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. • Final and Preliminary Plat -Nicklaus Estates at Muirfield Village -Muirfield Village Phase 46 (Case No. 07-127PP/FP) Mr. Langworthy stated that this plat proposes the division of the Nicklaus property into two separate lots. This proposal was made as the result of a requested improvement and addition to the accessory home for the Nicklaus Estates that would allow them to exceed the requirements of the Zoning Code. It was necessary to have a lot split to make that legal. They are also adding three other buildable lots. The issues, in particular with the access, related to the improvement of the private drive and installation of a cul de sac at the end to permit turnaround for emergency vehicles. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. Waiver of the sidewalk requirement, which requires separate Council approval. No sidewalk is proposed, consistent with what is already in the area. 2. Mitigate any tree removal; 3. Accommodate stormwater in the Muirfield corridor extension; 4. Provide the parkland dedication fee prior to the recording of the final plat. Mr. Reiner stated that he has no objection to waiving the sidewalk requirement consistent with the fact that there are no other sidewalks provided in the area. Mr. Keenan moved to waive the sidewalk requirement. Mr. Reiner seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Mr. Keenan, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici- Zuercher, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes. Vote on the plat: Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes. STAFF COMMENTS Ms. Brautigam stated that information has been provided on the dais tonight related to the February 11 study session review of the draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The memo lists some of the issues staff suggests Council consider in their review of the draft plan. If necessary, the discussion can be continued at the March study session. Vice Mayor Boring noted that the scheduled March study session conflicts with the NLC conference date. Ms. Brautigam agreed that those who are attending the NLC conference would not be present for the March study session. Vice Mayor Boring responded that she would prefer that Council study sessions not be scheduled at the same time as official functions, such as NLC are scheduled. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that Ms. Brautigam, Vice Mayor Boring and Mr. Lecklider are attending the NLC conference. She may also need to attend for a couple of days, due to a committee meeting. Ms. Brautigam stated that if all of the material cannot be covered at the February 11 study session, Council can then make a decision regarding a future discussion date. COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE/COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Mr. Reiner suggested that Council request a meeting with representatives of the area political RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 1 1 1 Held Page 12 parties to request that they not have involvement in the Dublin local elections. Other cities have done this, and he believes it would facilitate a better election process for Dublin. He requested other Council members' input. Vice Mayor Boring responded that it is an idea that should be explored. Ms. Salay concurred. It is a great idea, although she is not certain how compliance can be achieved. Mr. Reiner stated that Council would merely ask the Central Committees of both parties to refrain from involvement in the City's election process. Ms. Salay inquired if it would involve sending them a letter signed by all of Council. Mr. Reiner responded that it would be necessary to invite the heads of both major parties, and perhaps the Libertarian Party. Ms. Salay noted that the Green Party has also been involved in the local election. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher and Mr. Lecklider concurred with the suggestion. Mr. Keenan agreed with scheduling the discussion, but noted it is not possible to legislate such compliance. Mr. Reiner agreed, but the parties have respected the desires expressed by other communities in this regard, such as Upper Arlington. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested the next step in pursuing the matter. Mr. Reiner suggested that the Central Committee chairs be invited to meet with one of Council's standing committees. It was the consensus of Council to assign this to the Public Services Committee, chaired by Mr. Reiner. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher requested that Mr. Reiner apprise Council members of the date of the meeting when it is confirmed. Mr. Keenan stated that he had the honor of reading a proclamation for the Tyler Alfriend softball fundraising event at Jerome High School on Saturday. The funds raised were for Tyler, who was recently diagnosed with leukemia lymphoma. Although Tyler was unable to attend the event, his home is located next to the playing field, and he was able to watch the games from his window. Ms. Salay stated: 1. The current process for final development plan appeals is that the appeal is heard by the county court. Her position has always been that the appeal should come to Council first, and if necessary, move on to the county court system. She believes Dublin's zoning issues are best handled by the City. Several issues that went to the court system in the past could have been settled at the local level. Mr. Smith has provided legal opinions regarding this issue in the past, and she would like to have copies of those memos forwarded to Council to for reconsideration of the issue. 2. There have been issues in the past with structures that are in compliance with the City's zoning code, but are not in compliance with their neighborhood association's deed restrictions. This has caused serious problems for individuals who have obtained building permits, constructed a structure, and then learned the structure was prohibited by deed restrictions. Is there a mechanism that could prevent this from occurring, such as requiring that a sign-off of the neighborhood association be included with a building permit application? Although the City is not in the business of enforcing deed restrictions, it would be beneficial to preempt some of these situations. She presumes Mr. Smith and Mr. Langworthy would have some ideas of how to accomplish this. Ms. Brautigam stated that when Mr. Price served as the Chief Building Official, he was very concerned about that function becoming the responsibility of the City office. He indicated that it was not possible for the City to be aware of every deed restriction and the Building Standards division would then become responsible for knowing the details of private homeowner agreements and deed restrictions. It would make it difficult for City employees to perform their jobs. Ms. Salay stated that she envisions it would be the responsibility of the individual applying for the permit to communicate their plans with their homeowner association, obtain their permission, and provide proof of that permission to the City. The City communicates well and regularly with the homeowner associations. The additional step for the homeowner would ultimately save them much time and trouble. She believes the Muirfield RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 13 20 Association has a review process for accessory structure applications. The applicant must provide proof of having obtained permission from the association at the time the applicant submits an application for a building permit. Mr. Reiner stated that the Muirfield Association has a very stringent architectural review program and hires an architect to perform these reviews. Any changes the Muirfield resident wishes to make to his home or landscaping must be approved through that process. The regulations of the Association have been codified. Any person purchasing a home within that area must sign a warranty deed agreeing to abide by those regulations. Mr. Lecklider stated that he would be interested in exploring the idea. A couple of years ago, he had a conversation with the Building Department regarding an issue with a shed being built. The homeowner had obtained a building permit. The Building Department reviews an application to determine if it is in compliance with City Code, but they do not review it for compliance with deed restrictions. The City in fact stamps a disclaimer on the permit. It then becomes the responsibility of the homeowners association to enforce the deed restrictions. He does not want to see this situation repeated. From his discussion with the Building Department, it was his understanding that they notify the homeowners association when an application is submitted to the City. Ms. Brautigam stated that she is familiar with the shed matter to which Mr. Lecklider refers. The view of staff, which she supports completely, is that when an individual purchases a home, they enter into a private agreement with the seller and the buyer assumes the covenants related to that property. To have the City assume responsibility for a homeowner's compliance with such private restrictions/covenants would add work for the City, and would also constitute government assuming responsibilities of a private homeowner. In general, staff believes it is not the role of government to protect people from their own failure to read their closing documents. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher suggested that the City's application for a building permit could have a box to check, affirming compliance with deed restrictions as evidenced by an attached letter from the homeowners association. This would not result in the City accepting responsibility. It is indicating to staff that the homeowner has complied with those deed restrictions. Vice Mayor Boring stated that in the Muirfield example, they have their own regulatory system. With all of the neighborhoods in Dublin, it would not be easy to verify that the letter is legitimate. Ms. Salay stated that she believes there is an issue of awareness of residents of the deed restrictions. It is not a conscious effort on their part to violate them. Some neighborhoods do not have forced and funded associations, and those that do have very limited funds which are intended to maintain landscaping, etc. To put the onus on the association to retain an attorney and file a lawsuit seems cumbersome. Her intent is not to burden staff with more work; she is merely suggesting a letter from the Association be submitted along with a permit application. Mr. Smith noted that legal staff provided an opinion on this matter several years ago. He will circulate this again. There are many homes in the City that are not included in a homeowner association. In those cases, the homeowner would have to affirm that he does not have deed restrictions. That could be an issue. The City has always taken the posture that it will not enforce deed restrictions. The next logical step is, if in fact a homeowners association which is not well funded has someone violating their deed restrictions, will the City take steps to enforce them? Council may want to have a standing committee review this matter, and would likely want to involve homeowner associations in the discussion. Ms. Salay agreed with staff providing these memos for review. Council can then decide how to proceed with further review. Discussion continued. Mr. Smith will provide memos to Council about this matter within 30 days. Ms. Salav continued. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ~J 1 1 February 4, 2008 Page 14 3. The Community Development Committee needs to set a meeting date to discuss the fence code provisions, including trees, bushes and shrubs, etc. previously referred to it. In view of the schedule, she suggested an April meeting date be considered. 4. In regard to goal setting, she would like one of the topics to be a discussion of art and the City's role in providing art to the community. Vice Mayor Boring reported: 1. She attended a Central Ohio Mayors and Managers meeting recently, in the absence of the Mayor. One of the topics which drew discussion was property maintenance codes and how individual cities enforce them. In most cases, it was not complaint drive, but rather City initiated enforcement. 2. In regard to the retreat, she is suggesting the meeting be scheduled to begin on Thursday evening. This would allow some of the issues to be reviewed on Thursday evening, and everyone would be ready to begin a full day on Friday focusing on the topics scheduled. This change would eliminate the meeting time on Saturday. She asked for feedback. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, Mr. Reiner, Ms. Salay, and Mr. Keenan indicated they concurred with this change. Mr. Lecklider asked about the start time on Thursday. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher indicated it would likely begin at 6 p.m. Mr. Lecklider agreed with the schedule change. 3. In regard to the retreat agenda, she reviewed the proposed agenda items submitted by Council Members. Some of the topics may require more time, and perhaps could be scheduled at study sessions. It would be helpful to establish an agenda that Council is interested in following for the retreat. Ms. Salay stated that in terms of the board and commission discussion, these issues are for Council to decide, and perhaps most of the staff would not be needed to engage in that portion. She is aware that the Mayor and Mr. Gerber are interested in the retiree re- employment issue. She believes that, in particular, is more of a staff function in terms of administration. It would likely be handled case by case. The factors that play into this are the shortage of public employees in the future and the need to retain particular expertise. In addition, public employees who draw a pension earned that pension over their service of 25-30 years. They can seek employment in the private or public sector, and in many cases, it would be an advantage to hire someone back who is retired. The issue of succession planning is important overall, but she is not certain the retiree re-employment issues rises to the level of a goal setting retreat discussion item. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that she respectfully disagrees, as the future of the City is related to who is hired, the diversity of who is hired, and the plan of action for succession planning and transitioning. While Council is not responsible for the direct hires of the majority of the staff, Council is responsible for ensuring the City has a workforce that will take the City into the future. She would like to understand what is being considered by the staff in this area. She had concerns which she noted about receiving this memo so late in the process - at the point where someone is to be hired back who is retiring. The memo implied that while there was awareness of a pending retirement in 2008, that there had not been a plan in place about setting up a system so that the City is not in a position where it is felt it cannot function without those retirees remaining employed. It is necessary to have a transitioning plan in place to address these matters. Ms. Brautigam responded that in the specific case referenced, the employee will have an employment contract and the individual realizes it is not a permanent contract. Staff is working on a policy they would like to bring to Council. What she is hearing is that there is a desire for a broader discussion about the succession planning goal for the City and what is being done to achieve the goal. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher agreed. She believes this is a very appropriate discussion for goal setting. The City is at a point in its development where employees who have worked in Dublin are ready for retirement and will be executing that option. Vice Mayor Boring pointed out that the staff memo regarding retiree re-employment suggested the matter could be referred to a standing committee of Council. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 15 i~ I~ 1 Held 20 Ms. Brautigam responded that staff is working on a policy for a retiree who wants to be rehired by the City. That policy will be fairly simple and could be reviewed by the Administrative Committee, similar to what is done with benefit changes. If the entire Council wants more information about succession planning, that would be more of a retreat agenda item. Staff will follow Council's direction about how to proceed. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher noted that the retreat is in three weeks, and staff may not be prepared to address the larger issues at that time. Ms. Brautigam responded that staff has been working on policies for succession planning and would be happy to bring forward that information. Council can then direct staff on areas where they would like more emphasis. Mr. Lecklider noted that if it is a matter of prioritizing retreat agenda topics, he supports the ideas listed under the general heading of "zoning," and the topics of water/sewer districts and the future size of the City topic. He assumes that the time constraints will somewhat govern what can be covered. Mr. Reiner agreed with this plan, noting that Council can try to cover these topics in the time allotted. Mrs. Boring noted that the items listed as "General Council operational areas" on the list are all related. On Thursday evening, she suggests that the status of Council goals and Council priorities be discussed. Some of the items on the list are in process at the staff level and there may not be a need for more discussion at this time. Ms. Salay agreed, and noted that some of could be addressed in study sessions. Mr. Lecklider noted he agrees. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher summarized that the retreat agenda for Thursday evening will include a review of Council's 2007 goals and a review of Council priorities. Discussion continued. In regard to the arts topic, Ms. Salay noted that work is underway on the draft agreement between the Dublin Arts Council and the City. That agreement is very broad and talks of the City's relationship with the DAC and the expectations of both parties. This will be ready for Council review in a few months. There are some smaller issues with art projects that the City may want to do in conjunction with a park development, for example, and the issue is with the process of review for those pieces -staff, PRAC, Council, etc. She does not believe these require extensive interaction with the DAC, although they may want a role or want to be informed of them. There is not an understanding of what will occur with these smaller projects. There has been an interest in having more art and smaller projects, perhaps interior to the City buildings. Vice Mayor Boring suggested that the topic be "the role of the Arts Council with the City or partnership of the DAC with the City." Ms. Salay clarified that the topic relates to art outside of the formal agreement. Vice Mayor Boring believes this would still relate to the role of the DAC with the City in arts. The emphasis could be projects outside of the formal agreement. It was the consensus of Council to include the topic of the role of the DAC and the City in art for the City. Vice Mayor Boring noted that Ms. Salay has suggested that the board and commission discussion be scheduled at the end of the retreat, as staff would not need to present for this discussion. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher responded that one of her concerns is that some boards and commissions do not seem to have many agenda items. Staff could provide information to Council about what committee structures would make sense to meet the current and future needs. They may have valuable input for this discussion. Ms. Salay noted that her comments related to the discussion about the Planning & Zoning Commission. She agreed that staff input would be necessary for other board and commission related matters. Would staff be prepared to discuss these topics in three weeks? RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS February 4, 2008 Page 16 Ms. Brautigam responded that staff will give consideration to these items, but she is not certain a comprehensive report can be provided. However, staff does want to provide Council with information regarding the issue of the overlap of ARB and Planning & Zoning Commission with Historic Dublin matters. Staff will provide a report on this to Council. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher stated that perhaps Ms. Crandall, who has worked with some of the commissions over a long period of time may have input on what structure is needed going forward. Vice Mayor Boring summarized that the topics for Friday include succession planning; the role of the Dublin Arts Council and the City, especially in projects outside of the formal agreement; boards and commissions; and a staff presentation regarding the overlap of P&Z and ARB. Council has agreed that some of the others on the suggested list could be addressed in study sessions. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher reported: 1. She attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently and will provide some of the documents from the meeting to Council. 2. A copy has been provided to Council of the invitation from Delaware County Commissioner James Ward for a fundraising event. 3. A "Meals on Wheels" Day will be observed across the country and in Delaware County on March 19 through the Office on Aging, and Delaware County is engaging elected officials in this effort. If any Council Member would like to participate, she has the information. 4. At the Mayor's Conference, they devised their 10-point 2008 "Strong Cities, Strong Families for a Strong America" program. She will circulate copies when they arrive. ADJOURNMENT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher moved to adjourn to executive session at 9:17 p.m. for legal matters (to confer with an attorney for the public body concerning disputes involving the public body that are the subject of pending or imminent court action), land acquisition matters (to consider the purchase of property for public purposes), and personnel matters (to consider the appointment, employment, dismissal, discipline, promotion, demotion, or compensation of a public employee or official). Ms. Salay seconded the motion. Vote on the motion: Vice Mayor Boring, yes; Mr. Lecklider, yes; Mr. Reiner, yes; Mr. Keenan, yes; Ms. Salay, yes; Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher, yes. Mayor Chinnici-Zuercher announced that the meeting will be reconvened only for the purpose of formally adjourning. There will be no further action taken by Council. meeting was reconvened at 10:35 p.m. and formally adjourned. Mayor-Presiding Officer // Clerk of Council